One of President Biden’s final acts while in office might be to secure an agreement with Baghdad to remove U.S. forces from Iraq. Little covered by the media, American diplomats are working with Iraqis to arrange for a withdrawal, probably over the course of the next two years. Yaakov Lappin discussed the potentially dangerous consequences with the American security expert Bradley Bowman and the Israeli scholar of diplomacy Eytan Gilboa:

“The Islamic Republic of Iran wants the U.S. military out of the way,” Bowman stated. He explained that the U.S. presence in Iraq acts as a significant impediment to Tehran’s strategic objectives, which include exerting greater control over Baghdad and using supply lines to arm its proxies in next-door Syria, as well as Hizballah in Lebanon. “Iran would like to make Iraq like Lebanon, where Tehran uses its terror proxy to undermine national sovereignty and control government decisions,” he explained.

Gilboa also highlighted the strategic significance of the U.S. presence in Iraq, particularly in relation to Israel and other U.S. allies in the region. “Any move that strengthens Iran and its proxies harms Israel’s national security,” he stated.

Gilboa warned that if the U.S. withdraws, Iraq could become a failed state similar to Lebanon and Yemen, where Iranian-backed militias exert significant influence. “The American presence is a buffer that helps prevent the full takeover of Iraq by Iranian forces,” he explained. Gilboa questioned whether planners in Washington were thinking about the long-term consequences of such an action.

If there’s one lesson to be learned from the history of the Israel-Arab conflict, it’s never to be confident that an end is in sight. Ehud Yaari nevertheless—and with all due caution—points to some noteworthy developments:

The absolute primacy of “armed struggle” in Palestinian discourse has discouraged any serious attempt to discuss or plan for a future Palestinian state. Palestinian political literature is devoid of any substantial debate over what kind of a state they aspire to create. What would be its economic, foreign, and social policies?

One significant exception was a seminar held by Hamas in Gaza—under the auspices of the late Yahya Sinwar—prior to October 7, 2023. The main focus of what was described as a brainstorming session was the question of how to deal with the Jews in the land to be liberated. A broad consensus between the participants was reached that most Israeli Jews should be eradicated or expelled while those contributing to Israel’s success in high tech and other critical domains would be forced to serve the new Palestinian authorities.

Yet, the ongoing aftershocks from the ongoing war in Gaza are posing questions among Palestinians concerning the viability of armed struggle. So far this trend is reflected mainly in stormy exchanges on social-media platforms and internal controversies within Hamas. There is mounting criticism leveled at the late Mohammad Deif and Yahya Sinwar for embarking upon an uncoordinated offensive that is resulting in a “Second Nakba”—a repeat of the defeat and mass displacement caused by launching the war in 1948.

To be sure, “armed struggle” is still being preached daily to the Palestinian communities by Iran and Iranian proxies, and at least half the Palestinian public—according to various polls—believe it remains indispensable. But doubts are being heard. We may be reaching a point where the Palestinians will feel compelled to make a choice between the road which led to past failures and an attempt to chart a new route. It will certainly require time and is bound to cause fractures and divisions, perhaps even a violent split, among the Palestinians.